DIRTY WORDS
Despite being popular for hundreds of years there are many vocal terms which have become politically incorrect. Why these terms became offensive, who made these rulings, and how the progressive alternatives are enforced are all component parts of a fascinating topic. We are all affected by this political correctness and we all participate in its continuance. But have you considered why we do this and what effect it's having on the standard of singing?
In the first
part of this series titled "FEELING OUR WAY BACKWARD", a
hypothesis was put forth which claimed that biological and socio-environmental
changes are the cause. In that first article, foundational ideology was offered
in support of this claim. In this article the argument will be taken one step
further by furnishing this premise with hard evidence.
RECAP
SUMMARY
In the first
article a number of assertions were put forth. They were:
- That removing the technology of singing from its traditional environment and handing it over to academia had a negative impact on the standards of singing
- That the predominance of certain personality traits within academia was the reason why a political reform within singing occurred
- That the predominating personality traits within academia are openness, agreeableness and compassion
- That a supermajority of people with these traits resulted in the academic environment becoming pro-change, politically correct and feeling orientated
- That the characteristic of openness which predominates within academia is the cause behind vocal pedagogy’s need to constantly reinvent itself
- That the academic environment despite its technical jargon has begun to teach voice with a feeling orientated assessment of sound as opposed to a mechanical based assessment of sound.
CASE STUDY
As promised,
this article will furnish evidence to support the hypothesis put forth in part
one. To achieve this a case study has been devised. Below, three examples
will be given of historic terms which have become "Dirty Words"
as a result of political reform. Each term will be subjected to the
following two-part analysis.
1) Each term
will be analysed with a view to understanding in what ways it violates the
progressive tonal ideals
2) Quotes by a
great past singer who was trained in the traditional environment will be
considered. These quotes which relate directly to each term will enable us
to contrast progressive ideals with those of the historic environment
The singer
chosen for this case study will be Luciano Pavarotti.
When reviewing
the study it is recommended that you the reader also reflect upon your own
experiences in life. In this way you will be able to decide if the phenomenon
described is something which is real or not.
1. LOW
LARYNX
Anyone who has
had any involvement in classical singing over the last twenty years will
immediately know that using this term will trigger people. If the term is used
in a public masterclass it would be a sure bet that the person conducting the
masterclass would become the subject of controversy and never asked to
return. Sometimes a student will be singing with a high larynx and the
teacher will need to address the problem. To facilitate this, a whole
gamut of apologetic alternatives have been created such as the "comfortable" larynx, the "neutral" larynx, the "floating" larynx and the "relaxed" larynx (none of
which describe the need for the larynx to move to a lower position). The
teacher will choose their choice substitute and then spend five minutes
apologising and stressing how they don’t advocate a dangerously low larynx
and that they don’t want the larynx to be depressed. This
performance often includes grim faces being pulled by the teacher, and
generates nods of approval from conscientious members of the audience. I have
witnessed countless variations of these political demonstrations, all of which
left me in stitches. In every instance, at the end of a long-winded
discourse the student is left in a quandary as to whether they have been asked
to lower the larynx or not. However, the student’s confusion is of little
concern and is secondary to the fact that the teacher has been politically
correct, ensuring they will be invited back. In order to better
understand where this insanity has stemmed from, an analysis will now be done
to discover in what ways this term violates the new ideals.
Lowering the
larynx elongates the vocal tract bringing more darkness into the sound.
This violates the first ideal:
1) Natural
(closer to conversational speech)
In order to
balance the sound, both vocal fold closure and subglottic pressure need to be
trained to a strong level, and the diaphragm needs to be strongly developed to
balance the increased compression. This is not easy and needs to be learned
over time as the singer develops. The result is a much stronger and more
powerful sound which violates the remaining two ideals:
2) Gentle
(non-aggressive in its feeling)
3) Easy (not a
sound which is forced)
Now that it is
understood how a low larynx violates the progressive ideals the second part of
the analysis will be applied which considers the historical viewpoint.
In his Julliard
Masterclasses of 1991 Luciano Pavarotti made the following remarks regarding
the low larynx. Pavarotti said that we all have an Adam’s Apple and that
even girls have this apple. Pavarotti went on to say that exercises must
be done to train the Adam’s Apple to go down into a low position. He then
went on to say that this is a necessity and that in this regard we are all
built the same.
2. COVER
This term is an
English translation of some very intelligently devised Italian
descriptors. The words “cuperto” and “copertura” describe coverings like
a roof, lid or cowling. This concept perfectly describes how the voice
should not only sound but also feel when vocalising through the secondo
passaggio. As a result, this time-honoured term offers great benefit to
the singer. Unfortunately, the term’s inherent value has not saved it from
becoming outlawed. To quote the American baritone Joseph Shore:
"It is
a term which is highly maligned by people who cannot do it very well".
Any person
requiring proof of this politically correct war on words or an example of
someone who cannot do it very well need look no further than David Jones. In an
article titled "Male Voice Protection" published on his own
website, Jones states he has replaced the term with "acoustic
protection". In fact, Jones’ article (which is actually about cover) is a
perfect example of the behaviour which this article describes. Here Jones goes
to great lengths to phase out this historic terminology by replacing it with
his own new term. There is no doubt that Jones and his disciples believe that
he is performing a great moral duty by saving us all from the antiquated term
of “cover”. But what is obviously beyond their understanding is that the
substitute being offered has lost all of the descriptive value of the original
term. In addition to disadvantaging students by moving them further
away from a traditional concept, this act also predisposes the concept itself
to further bastardisation, of which the next instalment will be committed in
approximately ten years’ time. When this occurs, the offender, who can only be
defined at this stage as "the next David Jones", will make their
contribution to this multi-generational game of Chinese whispers. There is
nothing new in this behaviour which has been in full effect since the middle of
the last century, and despite its good intentions has only lowered the
standard of singing.
Now the study
will evaluate how the term cover violates the new progressive
ideals.
It is important
to understand that the majority of the contention lies around the rounding
and migration of vowels. This is because the progressive contingency within
singing falsely disseminates that covering results in an impure
vowel. In order to understand this it must be understood that the context of
impure does not relate to the intelligibility of sung text in a progressive
teacher’s mind. Rather to these teachers, impure means the degree to which
formant values vary from conversational speech. In this regard we can see
that covering violates the first of the new ideals:
1)
Natural (closer to conversational speech)
In reality, the
rounding of the vowel (arrotondamento), the migration of
vowels (aggiustamento) and covering (copertura) do not affect
intelligibility of the language when done correctly. However due to the fact
that these are all manipulations of the sound which do not occur within
conversational speech, they are deemed unnatural by the progressive
ideology.
In regards to
the remaining two ideals, which are:
2)
Gentle (non-aggressive in its feeling)
3)
Easy (not a sound which is forced),
the article will
consider the statements of someone who could do it well. Below, Luciano
Pavarotti describes covering as taught to him by Arrigo Pola.
Pavarotti said
that the covered sound is a forced and unnatural sound. He stated that it is a
sound which the developing student cannot believe is correct because it sounds
unnatural and muffled. Pavarotti also states that the covered sound is
a forced sound that puts a rest on the vocal cords, permitting them to
stay fresh.
3. THE
ATTACK
The attack of
the note is a term which has become virtually extinct. This term came
onto the radar of the progressive movement decades before the terms cover and
low larynx. My decision to include it in this list was to illustrate the likely
endgame for other terms which although are now considered politically incorrect
have not yet been eradicated. In 1986 (only five years before the
1991 masterclass) a text titled "The Structure of Singing" was
published. In this book, author Richard Miller replaces the historic term
of "attack" with the new term of "onset" stating that
the original term "attack" had negative psychological connotations
associated with it. I was given the opportunity to meet and sing for
Miller a number of times and I believe I understand his work well. Miller’s
research, experience and findings offer us a foundational level of
understanding for which I will always be grateful. However, despite making
positive contributions there were some confusions within his ideas. These
confusions typically arose from his attempts to homogenise the experiences he
had as a singer with the findings he gained from voice science. As a
result, sometimes the terminology of the voice scientist made its way into
the singer’s vernacular. The act of homogenising the vocabulary of the scientist
and the singer is one which many famous pedagogues of the
past opted against. Garcia II for example always kept his scientific
vocabulary separate and taught using the empirical method instructed to him by
his father. In my opinion, Miller would have done well to follow this
precedent. Instead, the vocabulary of Miller the voice scientist found its way
into the vernacular of Miller the teacher, which contributed to the
discontinuance of some historic terms.
By replacing a
historic term which had politically incorrect connotations with a
scientific “neutral” term, Miller actually created a false economy.
By considering the now antiquated term "attack" in its intended
context it is not difficult to see the benefit that the creators of the term intended to convey. Additionally, it can be understood how much value was lost when the
decision was made to discontinue its usage. Consider the scenario of a
household cat stalking its prey. The anticipation in the seconds leading up to
the attack are palpable. The concentration of the cat visualising the
attack is immense, then with balance and precision the cat launches into
motion. What better analogy is there for the attack of a high note in
operatic repertoire? It could be argued that none exist and it’s a fact
that singers like Callas and Corelli sang in this animalistic way.
In today's
politically correct environment we prefer our singers to gently
"onset" the tone with a loose and unprepared sphincter. This
lackadaisical approach (which emanates from the neutrality of the term onset)
fails in its preparedness of both the mental anticipation and the physical
instrument. These problems which are common today were well understood
by the old masters who deliberately used the descriptive term "attack"
to address these issues. In analysing the term attack we can clearly see
that it violates all of the new ideals:
1) Natural
(closer to conversational speech)
2) Gentle
(non-aggressive in its feeling)
3) Easy (not a
sound which is forced).
Obviously, it
is the connotation relating to violence from both a psychological and
physiological standpoint which forms the central objection. Today this kind of
thinking can be seen everywhere with people often promoting the absence of
aggression in the sound as a benefit. These assertions rarely include reasoning
as to why this is beneficial and are in essence just pedagogical instances
of moral virtue signalling.
The conclusion
of the analysis will once again be achieved by comparing the new ideals
with those held within the traditional environment. In his 1991 Julliard
Masterclass, Pavarotti described his attack of the acuti as being like a primal
animalistic function. He said he would jump to the other sound like an
animal. Also during the Australian leg of his farewell tour Pavarotti
gave a television interview where he was asked to offer an adjective which best
described his voice in its prime. The interviewer asked was it more
beautiful or persuasive? Pavarotti replied that he considered
his singing to be at its best when it was more "aggressive".
CASE STUDY
REVIEW
This simple
study clearly illustrates that the new vocal paradigm is 180 degrees removed
from the traditions of the past. While this study only examines three terms
there are countless others which have also been branded politically
incorrect. Some people are bound to write off this whole study as a
meaningless exercise in semantics, a conclusion which would be to their own
detriment, as the terminology changes themselves are only evidence of a
greater ideological shift. This change in ideology (which lies beneath the
politicisation of language) affects all aspects of singing and is a
contributing factor within opera's decline.
In relation to
the 1991 masterclass from which the majority of the quotes were drawn, it is
fair to say that the Julliard School had no genuine interest in what Pavarotti
had to say. The reason he was there was to signal that the Julliard School
remained the world's pre-eminent institution by continuing in its tradition of
high profile masterclasses with great artists like Callas and others who had
come before. Pavarotti clearly understood this, a fact evidenced through a
number of inflammatory comments which he made. One such instance of this was
during his commentary on the low larynx. During a section where he demonstrated a number of "hard
attacks", he stated that the sound comes from his larynx. He then, knowing
the political ramifications of his statement, said "THROAT. THROAT. AND I REPEAT, THROAT..... THE
SOUND IS FROM HERE, IN THE THROAT".
The majority of
teachers who were present at that masterclass would have returned to their
studios and told their students that Luciano Pavarotti didn’t really have a
clue what he was talking about. Some would have been less direct, opting
instead to translate his words for their students in order to make the message
acceptable. This response, although it seems illogical, is actually very
predictable when considering the dominant personality traits within this group.
Essentially these teachers’ socio-environmental conditioning coupled with their
biologically-induced tendencies meant that they could only ever respond in this
way. To them, Pavarotti was a dumbed-down buffoon blessed with a wonderful
natural instrument but without any real understanding of how he was using it.
If you are surprised by this reaction you should not be, considering that only five
years earlier Elma Linz Kanefield became the Founding Director of the Julliard
School’s Counselling Services, creating the first of its kind, fully staffed
psychotherapy facility, offering "unlimited" confidential
sessions to serve the entire graduate and post-graduate student body. Why a
student at any music school would require "unlimited" psychotherapy
sessions is unclear. However, what is clear is that many people like Elma Linz
Kanefield have made extraordinary sums of money in the process. These progressive
opportunists well understand that in today’s political climate more money can
be made by talking about "feelings" than the mechanics of the voice,
a fact which is clearly illustrated by David Jones in a one-minute sales pitch
linked here.
CONCLUSION
Often I think
about Maestro Pavarotti and in doing so I experience a sense of loss. I have
similar feelings about Maestro Corelli, Maestro Caruso and many others. I feel
like I know them through their singing and everything they offered us. It's
fair to say that although I never met them I miss them. They are the only ones
who truly understood what it takes to be great because they had achieved
greatness. The incredible sounds which each of them were able to find in their
throats were testament of this greatness. Each of them tried to tell us what
they knew but their words fell upon our deaf ears. Instead we favoured the
claims of academics who despite being unable to do it themselves assured us
they know how it should be done. Sometimes I imagine that Maestro Caruso,
Pavarotti and Corelli are all united together looking down on us from above. It
goes without saying that they would be saddened by the view.
When they look
at you what do you think they see?
Maestro
Pavarotti's actual statements are linked below.
ADDENDA
1) The article
acknowledges that the excerpt of David Jones is unrelated to vocal technique,
however his shameless display of virtue signalling exemplifies the political
correctness which this article describes. This ideology (which helps the
inner self to be heard through song) dictates that singing must be natural,
gentle, and easy, characteristics which are hallmarks of Jones' product despite
having nothing to do with historic operatic singing. The Loggione attempted to
locate other excerpts where Jones has explained vocal technique and the
proficiency of his own singing. Unfortunately these videos which used to be
online have now been removed from public view. This removal of content
from the public view commenced after claims were made that David Jones invented
the Swedish-Italian lineage, allegations which to date have gone
unanswered by Jones. It should also be noted that Jones, despite being a singer
for many decades, has never made a recording of his own singing available to
the public.
2) The article
claims that Elma Linz Kanefield is a progressive opportunist who has made
extraordinary sums of money through a parasitic relationship with the Julliard
School and opera singers in general. These claims will be substantiated in a
future article where Elma Linz Kanefield will be the subject. The Loggione also
looks forward to reviewing Ms. Kanefield’s yet to be released book which
details her life’s work titled "The Diva Syndrome".
3) In order to
substantiate the claims being made, these articles need to offer real life
examples of people who embody the issues being discussed. Without naming people
in this way the discussion lacks substance. While this kind of peer review was
common in the past it is no longer common in the politically correct
environment of today. It should be remembered that those who have been
criticised have the opportunity to defend these allegations in a public forum.
Furthermore, these people also have an equal opportunity to review those who
have criticised them. The Loggione is an advocate for this type of debate,
which by promoting the free exchange of ideas benefits the environment.
NEXT IN THE
SERIES
In the third
instalment of the series titled "MISUNDERSTANDING THE MIDDLE",
the Loggione will discuss how the progressive movement attempts to market its
ideology as traditional technique. This deceptive practice which muddies the
pedagogical waters is one of the main reasons why so much confusion surrounds
singing today.
Copyright Brett Goulding 2021
Comments
Post a Comment